The name of the film is Energy Crossroads, released by Tiroir A Films in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Right now, fossil fuels account for eighty-five percent of our energy consumption in the United States. These nonrenewable sources of energy took millions of years to create, yet it only took humans 150 years to deplete over half of these valuable resources. The central argument of the film focuses on human energy consumption and the consequent effect it is having on the world around us. It illuminates the issue that if we don’t change our consumption habits and the way we run our economies, we will see a dramatically new way of life in the future that we may not like.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The most prevalent sustainability issue in the film was the fact that as humans we consume an alarming amount of energy. Because of this we have taken only 150 years to use up half of all the worlds crude oil and have contributed irreversible damage to our atmosphere. The film portrays our dependence on oil as eventually ruining our economy, even a small change in oil availability will cause huge problems in every sector of industry.
Another sustainability issue is that our political system has not learned from past mistakes. Only a couple decades ago we saw a mini energy crisis in the United States that caused gas stations to run dry and oil prices to rise to unimaginable prices, and since that time there has been nothing done to prevent against another occurrence like that. Instead our economy is told to use use use to keep consumer prices down and our reserves are starting to dwindle. Also, the fact that there are 243 million vehicles in the United States alone and “The cars we drive today are no more efficient than the cars that Henry ford made 80 years ago” adding to our human footprint on the earth and causing extreme climate change.
One of the scariest ideas provoked in the film was the fact that if we do not solve this energy crisis and we let it get out of hand wars could be fought to suck up every last drop of oil in the world, they have been fought over far less. The fact of the matter is that because everyone is moving towards an industrialized lifestyle, more countries are dipping into the crude oil reserves which may cause tensions and it may come down to the fact that war is cheaper than paying for oil.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that one of the most compelling parts of the film was the fact that they tried to give a plausible solution to the problems that they showed. A lot of films that we have watched leave you feeling helpless to the problem, but this one gave many solutions ranging from things that businesses and industry can do to things that can be done on an individual level to help decrease our human imprint.
I also found it compelling that they were trying to suggest to the industrialized countries to talk to the countries that are just now developing and help them see that they need to take the sustainable route towards industrialization and not the route that the United States took. If everyone works together the great minds of the world can come up with a solution that is sustainable and continues to provide a quality life for all.
I liked the fact that they addressed government and politics, saying that we need to stop arguing about the problem and actually fix it. First, we need to recognize that there is a problem and that it needs to be fixed and then actually put policies and laws into place to help decrease our dependency on non-renewable sources.
Lastly, the story about the New Belgium Brewery Company was very compelling, the fact that one company sees the need for change and has implemented it in all aspects of the business shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel for us.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the fact that they tried to push most of the burden of making these changes onto individual states. I think that states should not be the only ones being aggressive about this issue; our federal government should be looking at this energy situation as a matter of national security and make changes across the board not state by state. The fact that the federal government is refusing to even consider these situations and makes changes is appalling, and it shouldn’t be left to the states [which are based on voting] to be the proactive ones.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The story about the Brewing company was very compelling to me and made me wonder what other businesses are making the effort to become more green? Are there local businesses that have modifies their practices in order to become more sustainable and better community partners? Also, the film mentioned a group who counteracts the power of big time energy companies and increased the use of renewable energy in one state to 10%. I would like to find out more about groups like that and find out if there are any in this area that students could get involved in.
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that the film is meant to be watched by all audiences, it was not very complex in nature and did not use many statistics or graphs that would make it hard to understand. I think that it really talked about a lot of things that Americans might know but may not think about much, like how much they actually consume, and make them think about a future without oil. I think that it may provoke people to get more involved in the movement towards renewable energy, but won’t really convince people to use less gas for their cars or homes.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film did an excellent job of giving points for intervention for the viewer as well as anyone in industry to decrease their consumption. Some of the solutions included wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass fuel for electrical energy power to decrease our dependency. Right now wind energy is only 1% of our energy; and it is even less expensive because the technology is so good. Solar energy is the largest alternative and is used all over the world; if used correctly and put onto houses it could heat and cool the houses without much fossil fuel at all.
In addition to these sources of intervention they gave solutions for everyday people; for one stop consuming so much energy, make your houses more sustainable by installing thicker glass, and having good insulation, unplug unused electronics and change your light bulbs to more efficient ones.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Some of the most compelling films that we have watched in the class have had an array of highly qualified people being interviewed, in this film I felt that they did not. It would have added to the educational value if they had more scientific based information and highly qualified people talking about it to drive the issue home.
The name of the film is Energy Crossroads, released by Tiroir A Films in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Right now, fossil fuels account for eighty-five percent of our energy consumption in the United States. These nonrenewable sources of energy took millions of years to create, yet it only took humans 150 years to deplete over half of these valuable resources. The central argument of the film focuses on human energy consumption and the consequent effect it is having on the world around us. It illuminates the issue that if we don’t change our consumption habits and the way we run our economies, we will see a dramatically new way of life in the future that we may not like.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The most prevalent sustainability issue in the film was the fact that as humans we consume an alarming amount of energy. Because of this we have taken only 150 years to use up half of all the worlds crude oil and have contributed irreversible damage to our atmosphere. The film portrays our dependence on oil as eventually ruining our economy, even a small change in oil availability will cause huge problems in every sector of industry.
Another sustainability issue is that our political system has not learned from past mistakes. Only a couple decades ago we saw a mini energy crisis in the United States that caused gas stations to run dry and oil prices to rise to unimaginable prices, and since that time there has been nothing done to prevent against another occurrence like that. Instead our economy is told to use use use to keep consumer prices down and our reserves are starting to dwindle. Also, the fact that there are 243 million vehicles in the United States alone and “The cars we drive today are no more efficient than the cars that Henry ford made 80 years ago” adding to our human footprint on the earth and causing extreme climate change.
One of the scariest ideas provoked in the film was the fact that if we do not solve this energy crisis and we let it get out of hand wars could be fought to suck up every last drop of oil in the world, they have been fought over far less. The fact of the matter is that because everyone is moving towards an industrialized lifestyle, more countries are dipping into the crude oil reserves which may cause tensions and it may come down to the fact that war is cheaper than paying for oil.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that one of the most compelling parts of the film was the fact that they tried to give a plausible solution to the problems that they showed. A lot of films that we have watched leave you feeling helpless to the problem, but this one gave many solutions ranging from things that businesses and industry can do to things that can be done on an individual level to help decrease our human imprint.
I also found it compelling that they were trying to suggest to the industrialized countries to talk to the countries that are just now developing and help them see that they need to take the sustainable route towards industrialization and not the route that the United States took. If everyone works together the great minds of the world can come up with a solution that is sustainable and continues to provide a quality life for all.
I liked the fact that they addressed government and politics, saying that we need to stop arguing about the problem and actually fix it. First, we need to recognize that there is a problem and that it needs to be fixed and then actually put policies and laws into place to help decrease our dependency on non-renewable sources.
Lastly, the story about the New Belgium Brewery Company was very compelling, the fact that one company sees the need for change and has implemented it in all aspects of the business shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel for us.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the fact that they tried to push most of the burden of making these changes onto individual states. I think that states should not be the only ones being aggressive about this issue; our federal government should be looking at this energy situation as a matter of national security and make changes across the board not state by state. The fact that the federal government is refusing to even consider these situations and makes changes is appalling, and it shouldn’t be left to the states [which are based on voting] to be the proactive ones.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The story about the Brewing company was very compelling to me and made me wonder what other businesses are making the effort to become more green? Are there local businesses that have modifies their practices in order to become more sustainable and better community partners? Also, the film mentioned a group who counteracts the power of big time energy companies and increased the use of renewable energy in one state to 10%. I would like to find out more about groups like that and find out if there are any in this area that students could get involved in.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that the film is meant to be watched by all audiences, it was not very complex in nature and did not use many statistics or graphs that would make it hard to understand. I think that it really talked about a lot of things that Americans might know but may not think about much, like how much they actually consume, and make them think about a future without oil. I think that it may provoke people to get more involved in the movement towards renewable energy, but won’t really convince people to use less gas for their cars or homes.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film did an excellent job of giving points for intervention for the viewer as well as anyone in industry to decrease their consumption. Some of the solutions included wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass fuel for electrical energy power to decrease our dependency. Right now wind energy is only 1% of our energy; and it is even less expensive because the technology is so good. Solar energy is the largest alternative and is used all over the world; if used correctly and put onto houses it could heat and cool the houses without much fossil fuel at all.
In addition to these sources of intervention they gave solutions for everyday people; for one stop consuming so much energy, make your houses more sustainable by installing thicker glass, and having good insulation, unplug unused electronics and change your light bulbs to more efficient ones.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Some of the most compelling films that we have watched in the class have had an array of highly qualified people being interviewed, in this film I felt that they did not. It would have added to the educational value if they had more scientific based information and highly qualified people talking about it to drive the issue home.